 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Leou3/1/2000
sterectomy on appellant. According to Dr. Barclay, Dr. Leou's training and skills were better than the average gynecologic surgeon, and that with the additional training that he had he would be expected to be able to palpate the course of the ureter correctly. He also testified that after examining the medical records he did not believe that Dr. Leou ligated the ureter. Instead, he opined that appellant's injuries were consistent with a suture being located adjacent to, but not through the ureter that caused a constriction or obstruction of the ureter. Dr. Barclay also noted the fact that none of the medical reports noted necrosis, which would have occurred if the ureter had been ligated.
Although Dr. Halbridge opined that Dr. Leou's actions were the proximate cause of appellant's injuries, that opinion is not decisive and does not warrant granting a new trial where conflicting medical evidence was presented. The jury obviously afforded Dr. Barclay's testimony a greater weight than that of Dr. Halbridge, which was within its province. Here, there was substantial evidence presented that supports the jury's verdict. As such, the trial court properly denied appellant's motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
hart and crabtree, jj., agree.
|